The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by User:Maralia 13:48, 4 November 2008 [1].

---

London[edit]

Nominator(s): User:Thehelpfulone

previous FAC (05:06, 10 June 2008)

Self Nomination: London's back again! The last FAC failed with sourcing issues, that of which I have now fixed. I put it through another peer review, and now hope it meets the FAC criteria. I will of course be happy to make any changes to it if you don't think it meets the criteria! The Helpful One ^Review 16:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw: Too many opposes, I've got some work to do! The Helpful One ^Review 21:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - there are issues to address.

• Images
  • The architecture gallery is unnecessary. I don't think it makes the article better.

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 17:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Is Image:Westminster-abbey.jpg the best quality image available for Westminster Abbey? It seems a bit dark, and it's low resolution.

Replaced with Image:Westminster abbey west.jpg. The Helpful One ^Review 18:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • There should be more variation on aligning images to the right, and a few to the left. (though not directly under section headings) The history, economics, and education section appear suitable for a left-aligned image.

Done. The Helpful One ^Review 18:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources
  • What makes http://www.demographia.com/dm-lonarea.htm a reliable source? What's "Southest England"? and it's not clear where they get their numbers from.

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • What makes world-gazetteer.com a reliable site? I have no idea who runs the site? and not thrilled with the pop-up ads that get past my pop-up blocker.

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Is ontarioarchitecture.com (Canada?) really a good source for describing architectural styles of London, when there are thousands of books [2] that cover the topic?

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • On the topic of architecture in London, the Wikipedia article mainly cites two websites - http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/London:+architecture and londonarchitecture.co.uk While these sites might possibly be reliable, I think there must be higher quality, more reliable sources to draw upon for this section.

Removed the first one, looking for an alternative to the second one. The Helpful One ^Review 19:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about some of these sources were raised at the last FAC, and don't seem addressed yet. I have not been through the rest of the article with detailed checking of sources, but again it appears that a lot of web-based sources are being used, when surely a huge amount has been written about London in more reputable or scholarly sources. I would like to see better sources for this important topic. --Aude (talk) 03:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.history.ac.uk/cmh/lpol/ - this appears useful for finding quality sources about London, among other places to look. --Aude (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - because a number of the sourcing issues from before still remain, as well as a few new ones.

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?men=home&lng=en&des=wg&srt=pnan&col=adhoq&msz=1500&geo=0 (note this was raised at the last FAC)

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • http://www.demographia.com/ (note this was raised at the last FAC)

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • http://www.citymayors.com/index.html (note this was raised at the last FAC)

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • http://www.ontarioarchitecture.com/index.html (this was raised at the last FAC)

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • http://web.archive.org/web/20070123080157/http://www.y-axis.com/verybritish/VisitOverseas.htm (this was raised at the last FAC)

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • http://www.chr.org.uk/legends.htm

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • http://www.london.diplo.de/Vertretung/london/en/02/An__Embassy__in__Belgrave__Square/Churches__in__London__Seite.html

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • http://londonarchitecture.co.uk/
  • http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/london/thames.htm

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • http://www.hill-bagging.co.uk/ (this was raised at the last FAC)

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • http://www.londononline.co.uk/

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • http://www.euromonitor.com/

Why it's it reliable? It's the website link for the information regarding the study. The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • http://encyclopedia.farlex.com/London:+architecture (this was raised at the last FAC)

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • http://www.travellondon.com/templates/attractions/index.html

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • http://www.spoonfed.co.uk/london/

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • http://www.infoplease.com/

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • http://www.allstates-flag.com/fotw/flags/cwn-beg.html (this would be reliable for the flag, but it's not necessarily reliable for the information being sourced to it, that London hosted a games in 1934) Also the title of the link is incorrect here, it's not the British Empire Games Website but "British Empire Games". Adding the "Website" there implies that it's an official site, which it's not, its from Flags of the World.

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • http://www.thetravelinsider.info/britain/londonundergroundtravelinfo.htm (this is being used to reference the number of riders on the Underground, which really would be better sourced to an official site, not a tourist site)

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • http://geography.about.com/od/urbaneconomicgeography/a/busiestairports.htm

Removed The Helpful One ^Review 19:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Current ref 4 (World Gazetteer) has an incorrect publisher and link title. I make the titles as "World Metropolitan areas" and the publisher as World Gazetteer.

Removed the reference. The Helpful One ^Review 19:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note that a publisher of a website isn't the url of it, but a name. So instead of current ref 3's publisher being www.statistics.gov.uk, it should be Office for National Statistics. the WORK would be www.statistics.gov.uk. You'll need to check all your references for this, as a number of them have this issue.
• Current ref 7 has an incorrect publisher listed. Should be Office for National Statistics.
• The following sources need page numbers:
  • Current ref 11 (Mills, David...)
  • Current ref 17 (Sassen, Saskia...)
  • Current ref 41 (Pepys, Samuel..)
  • Current ref 71 (Collins English Dictionary...)
  • Current ref 72 (Oxford English Dictionary...)
  • Current ref 120 (Sassen, Saskia...)
  • Current ref 169 (Colin Larkin...) Note that the author should be listed last name first for this reference also.
• Current refs 18 and 19 refer to wikipedia articles? Or are you referring to the study? If so, you need more information than given, including publishers, and page numbers.
• Please spell out lesser known abbreviations such as CILT, used in the references.
• I find the history section being sourced to The Museum of London and the BBC websites to be a bit ... underwhelming as far as sourcing. There are plenty of printed works on the history of London, they should at least be consulted for differing scholarly views on the history.
• http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=jX8ZAAAAIAAJ&q=rebuilding+of+london&dq=rebuilding+of+london&pgis=1 is a google search snippet, which don't allow the full context of the work to be understood. It's always best to consult the printed source and read it to get the full context of the author's meaning.
• Current ref 78 (LondonA History) is a book. it should be formatted as such, with an author, publisher, and page numbers. Hopefully the whole work was consulted rather than just the google books search that's presented.
• Is it UK Met Office or Met Office? Current ref 82 (Greenwich 1971-2000 averages) gives UK Met Office, but current ref 85 (Met Office the Great Smog of 1952) gives Met Office.
• There is no need to run publisher names into the link titles. Examples include (but this isn't exahustive) current ref 81 (BBC News..) Current ref 85 (Met Office..) 58 (BBC...) etc.
• Current ref 91 (Guardian Unlimi8ted Money) is lacking a publication date. Also, the title is incorrect, it should be "Super Rich".
• Decide if you're going to use BBC or British Broadcasting Authority, and be consistent.

Done. The Helpful One ^Review 19:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Current ref 104 links to a web page summary of an article. Are you referencing the article itself? If so, you need to format it like an article, not a web page. If you are just referencing the summary/abstract, what makes this a reliable source?
• Current ref 137 (London: architeture) is lacking a publisher.
• http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/Corporation/living_environment/open_spaces/ deadlinks
• Current ref 171 (London Event Listings) is lacking publisher and last access date at the very least.
• Current ref 215 has the incorrect publisher listed. It's not "London External" but rather the University of London.

Done The Helpful One ^Review 19:34, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A number of your last access dates are in ISO format, and should be made consistent with the rest of the article.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I read the page in entirety and made some very minor comments on the article talk page. I agree with Ealdgyth's comments on sources which also seem to be minor and easily corrected. If these corrections are made, I have no problem Supporting. I thought it was a great article, very interesting, in good format and included helpful information that one might use if considering a vacation there. I liked the prose and I felt it met FAC criteria. NancyHeise ^talk 18:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — Thehelpfulone, are you going to find reliable sources to replace the numerous ((fact)) tags that now exist? Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm going to look for some sources now - I left out 2 of the unreliable sources still in there, because they are used quite a bit, and will do those once the others are completed. The Helpful One ^Review 19:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The sourcing remains unimpressive. The "History" section, for which there are hundreds of books available, is almost entirely sourced to websites, even if reliable ones. The architecture section is even worse. No mention, or link, is made to Squares in London, when the garden square is London's unique contribution to archiecture; there is next to nothing on housing in general. There should be a picture of a square too, now the gallery has been removed. The reference for the statement "Most buildings in London date from the Edwardian or Victorian periods" is subscription-only, & looks far from authoritative. A look at both public/office buildings, and housing in most of London shows that the statement as made is highly unlikely to be true. The "average" building in London is probably a 1930s semi. The section jumps from the Great Fire to Battersea Power Station. No mention of Wren churches, Hawksmoor, or the significant late 17th or 18th century areas that remain largely intact - Soho, St James, Bloomsbury, never mind Regency or Victorian areas. With arguably the best museums in the world, but schools & universities few would make such claims for, the museums should not be tucked away under "education" right at the end. Equally there is only a passing mention that there is a "theatre district", when London theatre is one of the things that make it distinctive among the world's large cities. Without going overboard, pulling together a section on "visitor attractions", with statistics etc, would seem sensible, since the article will inevitably mostly irritate more than inform actual Londoners, & is likely to be used mostly by visitors. The prose remains unexciting & sometimes unacceptable - "Later important depictions of London from the 19th and early 20th centuries are the afore-mentioned Dickens novels, and Arthur Conan Doyle's illustrious Sherlock Holmes stories." Johnbod (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.